lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (09/18/89)
In <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu>, pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: >What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time -- >was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie >was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer that ever >existed." He was sure that they were simply "advertising type" >illustrations pasted on. That really strikes home. Many years ago, our computer club (Vancouver PET User's Group) managed to get a booth at the Pacific National Exhibition. We had quite a spread, featuring games, applications, a shared floppy drive with homebuilt hardware, and a lot of expertise ready for the questions. We also scheduled demonstrations of various aspects of the PET and announced the demos via a large sign. I was handling a demonstration of music, and gathered a pretty good crowd while I demoed the primitive single-voice, square-wave sound, the composition tools (all PD), for same, and so on. However, I finally plugged in the homebuilt R2R ladder D/A convertor, and started up '76 Trombones' in 4 voices, an amazing piece of programming for that time. That seemed to signal the end of the interest of the crowd, and most of them walked away at that point. A few stayed back and asked if I was playing it directly from audiotape. Opening the tape unit, I showed that it was empty. A few looked behind the machine, and pronounced that the sound had to be coming from something audio oriented somewhere. The one person who believed what I was saying, stayed and chatted about it for a while. Turned out he was an Apple user who wanted to do the same thing. To the rest, the music just wasn't 'computerish' enough to be 'real'. It's sad. -larry -- The Mac? Oh, that's just like a computer, only slower. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) (09/18/89)
Watching Siskel and Ebert this evening, I was amused to note that one of the
movies they reviewed ("The Rachel Papers") apparently features an Amiga
center stage. (The kid protagonist uses it to plot his dating adventures..)
They didn't like it much, by the way.
What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time --
was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie
was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer that ever
existed." He was sure that they were simply "advertising type"
illustrations pasted on.
Well, the clip they showed was probably less than five seconds, so it was
hard to tell positively, but to me it looked like typical Amiga output
(probably for FX purposes from TVText, Video Titler or one of that ilk).
Ain't it sad that the Amiga is still so far ahead of anything else in the
area of visual impact that Joe (or Roger) in the street still doesn't
believe it when he sees it!
-- Pete --kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (09/20/89)
In article <766@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu>, pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: >>What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time -- >>was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie >>was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer that ever >>existed." >That really strikes home. Many years ago, our computer club (Vancouver PET [...] > To the rest, the music just wasn't 'computerish' enough to be >'real'. It's sad. A couple of months ago I had to go buy an answering machine for my wife. I generally detest answering machines, so it was hard to accept. You see I figure that if I wanted to talk to a machine, it ought to sound like a machine. So I proceeded to use SPEAK: etc. to record the answering message. When I finished, I had a message which sounded quite reasonable, but still sounded like a machine. The message simply affirmed our telephone number etc. - no name was mentioned. I was satisfied. Well, it was too good. Seems that people didn't recognize either of our voices, so they would hang up only to call back later when we were home and ask "Who was that on your answering machine?"; never leaving a message. When told it was my Amiga computer, it never registered on any of them what I had done. Even after further explaination, it still drew a blank. My wife recorded a new message. No sense of humor :^) ==================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu Motto : "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing" ====================================================================
srt@aerospace.aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner) (09/21/89)
In article <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: > >Watching Siskel and Ebert this evening, I was amused to note that one of the >movies they reviewed ("The Rachel Papers") apparently features an Amiga >center stage. (The kid protagonist uses it to plot his dating adventures..) >They didn't like it much, by the way. > >What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time -- >was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie >was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer that ever >existed." He was sure that they were simply "advertising type" >illustrations pasted on. I think you both have a point. The graphics and interface shown in the movie are certainly possible on an Amiga (or a Mac II or VGA machine) but they aren't used in a reasonable way. For instance, when the protaganist erases the file containing information about Rachel, the computer puts a color picture of her up on the "screen, melts" it to the bottom of the screen and then centers a flashing "File Deleted" title. Wonder what OS that is? :-) BTW, I think Ebert may be mistaken about what type of computer it is. The film was shot in London, and I assumed that it was one of the English computers that we don't see over here. Certainly nothing about it said "Amiga" to me, though I'm no Amiga expert. Anyway, a minor point all around. There are deeper problems with the movie than the computer. -- Scott Turner
dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (09/22/89)
> In <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu>, pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: >What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time -- >was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie >was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer that ever >existed." He was sure that they were simply "advertising type" Well, I missed the screen shot and only saw the computer from the side. The point I thought Ebert was trying to make was that real computer applications don't look the way people display them in movies. How many movies have you seen where 'crackers' break into a remote machine and it starts spewing 3-d vector graphics onto the screen, uh huh. It's not really a question of whether the machine is capable of producing such results its a question of whether any likely application would have such output. I haven't seen the movie but I suspect it is highly unlikely that the 'hero' was generating animations, more likely animations were used to give more pizazz to what most likely been a much more static looking program. In effect, flashy advertising illustrations (albeit Amiga generated) are substituted for what would be a reasonable computer interface. All speculation mind you, as I said I haven't seen the movie. David Albrecht
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) (09/22/89)
Scott "TCB" Turner, in article <58150@aerospace.AERO.ORG> replies to my posting in article <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu>: I wrote: || Watching Siskel and Ebert this evening, I was amused to note that one of the || movies they reviewed ("The Rachel Papers") apparently features an Amiga || ... || What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time -- || was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie || was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer... Scott replies: > I think you both have a point. The graphics and interface shown in > the movie are certainly possible on an Amiga (or a Mac II or VGA > machine) but they aren't used in a reasonable way. Very probably -- like I said, it was just a five-second clip I saw. It was just his concept of what a *COMPUTER* OUGHT to look like that got to me. > For instance, when the protaganist erases the file containing information > about Rachel, the computer puts a color picture of her up on the > "screen, melts" it to the bottom of the screen and then centers a > flashing "File Deleted" title. Wonder what OS that is? :-) Gee -- that sounds JUST like some of the Amiga hacks I know... (;-)) Actually -- again with the caveat that I haven't seen the movie (and don't really propose to) so I don't know the context -- it doesn't seem too fanciful to imagine a flashy program that would do that. My guess is he'd be working from some kind of database program anyway, rather than directly with the OS. > BTW, I think Ebert may be mistaken about what type of computer it is. > The film was shot in London, and I assumed that it was one of the > English computers that we don't see over here. Certainly nothing > about it said "Amiga" to me, though I'm no Amiga expert. I'm sure ol' Roger has NO idea what computer it is. However the familiar logo was clearly visible in the close-up shown in the program, so there's no doubt as to the brand. > Anyway, a minor point all around. There are deeper problems with the > movie than the computer. So I am given to understand... (:-)) Episode concluded. -- Pete --
pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) (09/23/89)
In <231@kesmai.COM>, dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) says: > The point I thought Ebert was trying to make was that real computer > applications don't look the way people display them in movies. How > many movies have you seen where 'crackers' break into a remote machine and > it starts spewing 3-d vector graphics onto the screen, uh huh. I was going to drop the topic, but on second thoughts I think I was being a bit hard on Roger Ebert, and ought to apologise to him a bit first. In fact, of all the critics I read and watch, Ebert is the one who's opinions I value the most (and Siskel too to a lesser extent) -- even though I've flatly disagreed with him on many occasions. And I do appreciate his fair understanding of Science Fiction. I am also very aware of how computers are nearly always depicted incredibly stupidly in movies. Don't you just love it when the system blows up with dazzling pyrotechnics...? (Filmmakers can't seem to resist this device even when the rest of the plot makes some sort of sense. I saw a movie in London at Christmas whose plot revolved around a special bar code on a box of chocolates: of course when a poor shopkeeper was conned into reading it with his checkout wand his system fried all the way back to the plug in the wall... (Otherwise I rather liked the movie; but don't look for it in the States.)) > ... In effect, flashy advertising illustrations (albeit Amiga > generated) are substituted for what would be a reasonable computer > interface. Yeah, maybe -- and as neither of us has seen the film, I guess we can't take this much further (;-). However, in these days of User Friendliness, exotic graphics, MultiMedia, and so on, program vendors are competing for a new market. That great mass of computer illit... er... the Great American Public wants Flash! Think of how important that is to IBM & Sears in their "Prodigy" service; without it, it would just be a down-market Usenet! (:-)) I see this trend accelerating sharply over the next few years -- very much faster than actual program functionality, probably... I guess my basic reaction was that Ebert was equating "real" computer output with good old scrolling text (probably green, at that!), which just isn't so any more. Whatever. I'm sure it's a really bad picture anyway. -- Pete --